The Madras High Court recently ruled that while Siddha practitioners in Tamil Nadu are not prohibited from practicing modern medicine, they are not allowed to store allopathic medicines without proper licensing. The court dismissed a plea to quash a case against a Siddha doctor who had been found stocking allopathy medicines, which was in violation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

Justice G. Jayachandran, who presided over the case, clarified that while Siddha practitioners are allowed to practice modern medicine under certain circumstances, the issue at hand was the unauthorized storage of drugs without a valid license. This act was deemed a violation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940.

The court referred to a Government Order (GO Ms. No. 248) issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department on September 8, 2010. This order allows registered members of the Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical Council to practice the modern scientific system of medicine. However, Justice Jayachandran noted that the permission to practice modern medicine does not extend to storing or distributing allopathy drugs without following proper licensing procedures, as outlined in Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940. This provision mandates that any drug intended for distribution or sale must be stored only with a valid license.

The case involved Dr. S. Sindhu, a Bachelor of Siddha Medicine and Surgery (BSMS) graduate who was registered with the Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical Council. She ran a clinic in Tamil Nadu where, on February 28, 2017, officials from the Assistant Director of Drugs Control's office inspected the premises and found allopathic medicines. The inspection resulted in a private complaint being filed by the Drugs Inspector under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), alleging an offense punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

Sindhu argued that the trial court had failed to properly assess the complaint before taking cognizance of it. She pointed out that the court seemed to assume she was an unqualified practitioner, or "quack," without considering the Government Order that explicitly permits Siddha practitioners to incorporate modern medicine into their practice. Additionally, she stated that as a Siddha doctor, she was entitled to keep a small quantity of allopathy medicines in her clinic for emergency situations, and her possession of these medicines did not amount to selling them.

Sindhu also claimed that there was no criminal intent in possessing these drugs, which should exempt her from any violation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act or the Drugs Rules of 1945. She argued that her response to the show cause notice issued by the authorities had not been adequately considered before the case was registered.

In defense of the prosecution, the Government Advocate asserted that Sindhu’s response to the show cause notice was not sufficient to clear her of the charges. The prosecution argued that while the rules regarding the sale, manufacture, and distribution of drugs under the Act do not apply to Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani medicines, they are fully applicable to allopathic drugs. Therefore, the issue was that Sindhu was found in possession of allopathic medicines without a drug license, which justified the charges filed against her.

The court emphasized that the case was specifically about the unauthorized storage of drugs without a proper license, not merely about her qualifications as a Siddha practitioner. As a result, the court refused to quash the legal proceedings. However, acknowledging that the case had been ongoing since 2018, the court directed the Magistrate to expedite the process and ensure that the matter is resolved as quickly as possible.

This case highlights the complex legal landscape surrounding traditional medical practitioners and their ability to use modern medicine in their practice. While Tamil Nadu’s Government Order allows such cross-practice, the regulatory framework under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act still imposes restrictions on the storage and sale of drugs. For practitioners like Sindhu, the ruling underscores the importance of adhering to licensing requirements, even when their practice bridges traditional and modern systems of medicine.

(Input from various sources)

(Rehash/Yash Kamble/MSM)